================
@@ -15845,8 +15845,10 @@ void Sema::CheckCoroutineWrapper(FunctionDecl *FD) {
RecordDecl *RD = FD->getReturnType()->getAsRecordDecl();
if (!RD || !RD->getUnderlyingDecl()->hasAttr<CoroReturnTypeAttr>())
return;
- // Allow `get_return_object()`.
- if (FD->getDeclName().isIdentifier() &&
+ // Allow some_promise_type::get_return_object().
+ // Since we are still in the promise definition, we can only do this
+ // heuristically as the promise may not be yet associated to a coroutine.
+ if (isa<CXXMethodDecl>(FD) && FD->getDeclName().isIdentifier() &&
FD->getName().equals("get_return_object") && FD->param_empty())
return;
----------------
usx95 wrote:
> But in that case we shouldn't see any coro_return_type annotations either and
> there will be no pending actions? I don't see why this approach won't work.
Why not ? We would always see the `coro_return_type` annotation for the return
type. The declaration (and therefore the annotations) of `CoroReturnType` would
be visible to `CoroReturnType get_return_object() { return {}; }`. This TU does
not have to have a coroutine definition.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77066
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
